Subject: Re: CAP & busytime? - CUA-BOT

From: "Preston Stephenson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 13:03:20 -0700

I'm confused.
Doesn't the iTIP spec say that the response to the VFREEBUSY REQUEST is
the VFREEBUSY REPLY with the FREEBUSY information?

Is the following the way CAP is suppose to work then?
   CAP can't return the VFREEBUSY REPLY in response to the VFREEBUSY
REQUEST.
   CAP can only return success or failure of the creation of the
VFREEBUSY REQUEST.
   The CUA would need to use CAP to search for the VFREEBUSY REPLY
using the UID returned from the VFREEBUSY REQUEST at a later time?

Thanks.
Preston Stephnson
[email-masked]

>>> [email-masked] 4/1/2003 12:34:53 PM >>>

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Doug wrote on 03/31/2003 06:12:54 PM:
>  > > For busytime, iTIP uses the VFREEBUSY component with
METHOD:REQUEST or
>  > > METHOD:REPLY for requesting and responding, respectively.  In
CAP, I
>  > > guess that would crudely map to a CREATE command with particular

> TARGETs
>  > > but there is NOTHING to lead me to belive that the CS must do
any 
> actual
>  > > processing beyond the actual request creation.  
>  >
>  > In fact we squashed the CS from doing any work for the CUA.
>  > You need to have your CUA or a CUA-BOT do it for you.
> 
> I dont recall that decision and I certainly think making VFREEBUSY
data 
> totally disjoint from the contents of the associated calendar is a
BAD 
> idea. 

It was under the 'roll-up' discussion. Only you and I thought it
was a good idea. The WG smashed it.

-- 

  Doug Royer                     |   http://INET-Consulting.com 
  -------------------------------|-----------------------------
  [email-masked]                 | Office: (208)612-INET
  http://Royer.com/People/Doug   |    Fax: (866)594-8574
                                 |   Cell: (208)520-4044

                 We Do Standards - You Need Standards

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 15:23:12 -0500

>using the UID returned from the VFREEBUSY REQUEST at a later time?
That does seem to be what Doug's saying--if CAP supports freebusy only 
as part of iTIP, then freebusy works the way iTIP works in CAP, which, I 
think, is CUA-to-CUA, with the CS used only as a message store.

-- 
/============================================================\
|John Stracke      [email-masked]                     |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com                   |
|Centive           |My opinions are my own.                  |
|============================================================|
|"God does not play games with His loyal servants." "Whoo-ee,|
|where have you *been*?" --_Good Omens_                      |
\============================================================/

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 13:45:04 -0700

> using the UID returned from the VFREEBUSY REQUEST at a later time?

CAP can save VFREEBUSY objects.
CAP can fetch VFREEBUSY objects.

How the objects themselves get populated is not part of
the CUA <-> CS protocol - CAP.

I agree it would be nice to automate the creation of
VFREEBUSY objects in the CS. However this WG  has not
yet specified how this is done. It is not specified in
the CUA <-> CS protocol - CAP.

--